A Louisiana man has been sentenced to decades in prison and physical castration after pleading guilty to raping a teenager, according to a news release from the region’s district attorney.
Glenn Sullivan Sr., 54, pled guilty to four counts of second-degree rape on April 17. Authorities began investigating Sullivan in July 2022, when a young woman told the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office that Sullivan had assaulted her multiple times when she was 14. The assaults resulted in pregnancy, and a DNA test confirmed that Sullivan was the father of the child, the district attorney’s office said. Sullivan had also groomed the victim and threatened her and her family to prevent her from coming forward.
…
A 2008 Louisiana law says that men convicted of certain rape offenses may be sentenced to chemical castration. They can also elect to be physically castrated. Perrilloux said that Sullivan’s plea requires he be physically castrated. The process will be carried out by the state’s Department of Corrections, according to the law, but cannot be conducted more than a week before a person’s prison sentence ends. This means Sullivan wouldn’t be castrated until a week before the end of his 50-year sentence — when he would be more than 100 years old.
Are you saying that it is acceptable to sentence people to things that would normally be considered cruel as long as the judge doesn’t think they’ll live long enough for it to happen?
Louisiana has never physically castrated anyone. This sentence is a childish gesture, but I’m sure it made the victim and their family a lot happier. I’m all for prisoner rights, and not performing physical modifications. I would be in favor of chemical castration in all sex crimes.
So then yes, you think it should be legal for a judge to sentence someone to something cruel as long as the judge assumes the prisoner won’t live long enough to get the punishment.
I assume you read the article, and the law, because he was just sentenced to chemical castration, and it’s his option to do it physically.
The rapist chose that option, and so that was the sentence.
Everyone involved is just trying to look hard on rape in the press by saying they’re cutting off his balls.
This is bad journalism, and rage bait. Consider yourself on the hook. 🪝
Why do you assume I think chemical castration is not cruel? I’m guessing you would think it was a cruel thing to be forced to do if you were in their place.
Justice should not be about vengeance and chemical castration does not reduce sexual aggression. Rape is much more about power and you do not need to be able to have an erect penis to rape someone.
https://www.dw.com/en/combating-sexual-violence-is-chemical-castration-a-valid-method/a-56839505
The rapist chose physical castration over chemical castration.
The link has some pretty convincing statements in favor of physical castration, so maybe don’t just paste the first link you find with a headline you think will agree with your opinion.
Which convincing statements would those be? Because I read the article. The good results were mostly done from people who volunteered for chemical castration, not someone who was sentenced to choose between two types of castration.
And regardless of effectiveness, it is still cruel. If cutting off a repeat offender thief’s hand was an effective way to stop them stealing, would you be in favor of it?
Say this back to me, because I think you’re ignoring facts:
Say this back to me, because I think you’re ignoring what I’m saying:
ALL CASTRATION IS CRUEL.
Being sentenced to choose one type of castration over another type of castration is STILL CRUEL.